Hacker News Reader

Comment by rland | Hacker News Reader

It's mind-blowing that we live like this.

We forced every adult into being a single atomic worker by completely eliminating jobs and benefits that enable single earners to care for their entire family (through the "unpaid" domestic work of the wife). Then, when we need to actually care for our families, we outsource that to the private sector, so that other atomic worker units can do the job for us. We have to do this, because nobody has time to care for our parents; we all have to work!

What did we get for doing this? What life improvements were gained?

The collective grief of the millions of people who have died alone is not worth any of this.

View on HN

Very few people want to take care of their parents

I've seen our family share the burden among siblings over time. My SO's family often rotated duties too. This was more practical when there were many kids and the elderly didn't have as many years in need of assistance.

In hindsight it looks like it was a blessing and a curse. More time with them but weighed heavily on the mothers and daughters of all ages.

Having multiple (more than 2) children is a pyramid scheme. It only works at times of population explosion.

Women gained freedom, aka ability to earn income.

The freedom to work for a boss that sees her as just another disposable "human resource" instead of working for a family that sees her as it's essential heart.

The financial freedom to leave an abusive spouse or family, as well.

Modern no-fault divorce laws along with alimony and child support are a pretty comprehensive solution to this problem. And there's no way to legislate against emotional attachment if that's what's keeping a person in an abusive relationship. At that point it's up to his or her friends and family to provide support.

I’ve seen plenty of families where the woman / daughter in law is seen as the essential maid rather than essential heart, whatever that means.

Speaking to my elderly relatives, a few of the women resented being told they were getting fired as soon as they were married “because [their] husband can do the earning now”.

I certainly would’ve resented it too.

Women also lost freedom. They went from not having the choice to work to not having the choice to not work.

In the golden olden days in which you allude, no one was paid to take care of children and parents. It's an argument to say we should subsidize those that care for their own parents and children (and there are numerous government programs and tax breaks that already do), but you are undercutting your thesis with this bizarre assertion.

Many old people never had kids, and don't have any family. They need paid workers to take care of them. Many readers of this comment are perhaps planning on not having kids, or even not getting married. Just imagine yourselves in 40 to 60 years - this will be you!

And why are we now comfortable with not having kids? Because of atomism.

The "golden age" argument is flawed. No one seriously argues that literally everything was better in the past. Rather, the criticism is that it's absurd to have gotten rid of something positive we already had, only to replace it with something worse and gain no net benefit as a result.

It's all a matter of interconnected systems, including systems like social shaming. If it's unacceptable socially to not have a family, you'll have one. If it's unacceptable for women to work and compete with men for wealth and power, men will make enough to support their entire families, allowing at least one parent to always be there to raise children properly, instead of outsourcing that to strangers -- same for elderly care.

At the end of the day, atomism harms everyone and everything.

In the past it was understood if you didn't have a family and kids, and find a way to make an income within the family unit, no one would help you. It is only within the last 100 years that social safety nets became cradle-to-grave regardless of your family circumstances.

> If it's unacceptable socially to not have a family, you'll have one. If it's unacceptable for women to work and compete with men for wealth and power, men will make enough to support their entire families, allowing at least one parent to always be there to raise children properly, instead of outsourcing that to strangers -- same for elderly care.

Is it not socially unacceptable for men to abuse their wives? Yet it still happens. So I don’t know what you’re going on about atomism and whatnot, but I’m happy my sisters and my daughters will have the ability to stand on their own.

And if women’s freedom causes the problem of parents not having enough time to spend with children, then that has something to do with minimum wage and overtime/maximum hours at work laws than it does women’s freedom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com